Which Pilot is Better?

[Dav8or]

I'm not so sure that sitting in a padded office chair, surrounded by banks of computers, makes anyone a "better" pilot. I think it makes them more of a computer wizard. Just a few years ago a guy driving one of those passenger filled computers, pulled back on the yoke in order to correct for a stall, killing all on board. That sh*t is flying 101, yet he had become so dependent on his computers, he had apparently forgotten how to fly an airplane.

-John

Again, you're still not getting it. I'm not asking for a critique of airline pilots (although that does seem to be the intent of the thread), I'm asking for your thinking on why an airmail pilot is a better pilot. The fact that an airline pilot crashed an airplane and killed a bunch of people isn't good enough, because airmail pilots crashed a lot and killed their passengers too.

 

[j1b3h0]

+1, Jay. The phrase "Better Pilot" is hard to quantify - but most of us recognize skill when we see it. The FAA's own requirement for an ATP applicant: The pilot shall be the obvious master of the aircraft, and the successful outcome of all maneuvers is never in doubt.

One measure of 'better pilot' that I've witnessed is a person's ability to demonstrate physical mastery of almost any airplane, with very little practice. In other words, they can fly anything on the airport very well.

 

[denverpilot]

Given that 95% of the old airmail pilots died on the job, I'd have to vote for the airline guys, since most of them make it back in one piece. To me the better pilot is the one who doesn't die.

So if we had a time machine and put a modern airline pilot in the shoes of the airmail pilot, would they be smart enough not to turn the key, or would they launch anyway because they need to feed the offspring?

 

[Clark1961]

There is no doubt that this experience would make a superior pilot, over time -- and that's why most of us believe the pilot of the Boeing 40 was superior.

Maybe there's no doubt in your mind. There is in mine. Certainly the airmail pilot had a great deal of practice as a stick actuator. We build machines that actuate the stick just fine and free the pilot to do their real job which includes ensuring a safe flight in cooperation with ATC and many other aircraft. Airmail pilots didn't have to work within a system or even worry about traffic. We haven't even addressed aircraft complexity or operational speeds yet...

 

[Dav8or]

That is the crux of the issue, isn't it?

Here's my ideal pilot:

1. Flies in varying conditions, often.
2. Flies different aircraft types, often.
3. Has excellent, lightning fast reflexes.
4. Has superior hand/eye coordination.
5. Must be unflappable. Isn't a drama queen.
6. Doesn't trust other people's numbers.
7. Is mechanically inclined.
8. Is thorough and meticulous in flight prep.
9. Has a good feel for the machine.

That last one is EXTREMELY hard to define. For example, I've always had a good "feel" for machines, and can tell when an engine isn't happy through a combination of sound, vibration, and some sort of instinct that (for example) my wife does not possess. Flying in an aircraft with ancient technology (AKA: Almost any piston engine), it is advantageous to have this "feel".

Another hard to define trait would be: "Doesn't fly the same hour, over and over, for 20,000 hours".

This is where the airmail pilots shone through as superior, IMHO. I have known enough airline pilots to appreciate that their enroute flying is almost entirely automated. Airmail pilots had no such luxury -- they were hand flying all the time. If they had 2000 hours, that probably gave them the equivalent stick time of 8000 hours in a modern airliner. (Or 6000. Or 4000 -- who really knows? PLEASE don't let the OCD guys get hung up on a particular number again. It's an EXAMPLE.)

There is no doubt that this experience would make a superior pilot, over time -- and that's why most of us believe the pilot of the Boeing 40 was superior.

Those are individual pilot traits and not exclusive to airmail pilots. There are no doubt airline pilots that possess all of these traits and there were probably airmail pilots that had few of these traits. If you mean, is the average airline pilot better, or worse than an average airmail pilot, then I would have to say there is no way to know for sure, but I can say that they both had/have a job to do and got/get it done as best they could/can.

As to the 2000 hours, here is quote from the National Postal Museum's website-

Flying the mail was risky business. During the nine years the Post Office Department operated the Airmail Service, there were more than 6,500 forced landings. On the average, airmail pilots had a life span of only about 900 flying hours. Postal officials insisted that these early airmail pilots take off despite poor flying conditions. Neither snow, nor fog, nor winds, nor torrential rains were expected to delay them in the swift completion of their flights. This attitude did little to improve the image of the Airmail Service, which at that time was considered little more than a "Suicide Club" for flyers.

Now that I think of it, given the quote above, I can make the argument that the airline pilot is the better pilot. I believe that one of the core foundations of a good pilot is decision making. I hate to keep coming back to the safety/lack of thrills/personal preservation thing, but which pilot do you think exhibits good ADM traits? The one that follows the methodical career path that ends with long life, money in the bank and a pension, or the one that joins the "Suicide Club" for thrills, fame and glory?

 

[Dav8or]

So if we had a time machine and put a modern airline pilot in the shoes of the airmail pilot, would they be smart enough not to turn the key, or would they launch anyway because they need to feed the offspring?

If they were truly worried about feeding the offspring, they would never, ever had become airmail pilots. The worst way to care for your children is to get yourself dead.

 

[ClimbnSink]

So if we had a time machine and put a modern airline pilot in the shoes of the airmail pilot, would they be smart enough not to turn the key, or would they launch anyway because they need to feed the offspring?

The modern airline pilot would choose to drive trains in 1920, we can argue which one is the better pilot but they are two completely different groups of people.

Now that I think of it, given the quote above, I can make the argument that the airline pilot is the better pilot. I believe that one of the core foundations of a good pilot is decision making. I hate to keep coming back to the safety/lack of thrills/personal preservation thing, but which pilot do you think exhibits good ADM traits? The one that follows the methodical career path that ends with long life, money in the bank and a pension, or the one that joins the "Suicide Club" for thrills, fame and glory?

What made modern sissy flying possible? Superior pilots embracing risk like a man.

 

[jesse]

The modern airline pilot would choose to drive trains in 1920, we can argue which one is the better pilot but they are two completely different groups of people.


What made modern sissy flying possible? Superior pilots embracing risk like a man.

Do you not think there were other pilots in that era that looked down upon the suicide airmail pilots and instead of death they enjoyed a long career of safe aviating?

 

[ClimbnSink]

Do you not think there were other pilots in that era that looked down upon the suicide airmail pilots and instead of death they enjoyed a long career of safe aviating?

Nope. In the 1920's I doubt it. How many people on this board would sign up for 1920's flying? Almost none. The gnashing of teeth, apron clutching and denial about the current GA death odds is bad enough, most people here would be paddling canoes for fun in the 1920's.

 

[Skylane81E]

The modern airline pilot would choose to drive trains in 1920, we can argue which one is the better pilot but they are two completely different groups of people.


What made modern sissy flying possible? Superior pilots embracing risk like a man.

The superior pilot uses his superior judgment to avoid having to use his superior skill,

Airline pilot, every day and twice on Sundays.

 

[Art VanDelay]

I would happily go down and take a systems oral exam on the Boeing 40 any day versus the A380 !

 

[jesse]

Nope. In the 1920's I doubt it. How many people on this board would sign up for 1920's flying? Almost none. The gnashing of teeth, apron clutching and denial about the current GA death odds is bad enough, most people here would be paddling canoes for fun in the 1920's.

Where exactly do you think these airmail pilots came from? Did all of those pilots become airmail pilots? When did scheduled commercial airline flights first start happening? What year did the Ford Trimotor start hauling folks around?

 

[Jay Honeck]

Nope. In the 1920's I doubt it. How many people on this board would sign up for 1920's flying? Almost none. The gnashing of teeth, apron clutching and denial about the current GA death odds is bad enough, most people here would be paddling canoes for fun in the 1920's.

I don't care which side of the debate you're on -- THAT is funny!

 

[denverpilot]

The superior pilot uses his superior judgment to avoid having to use his superior skill,

Airline pilot, every day and twice on Sundays.

No one ever takes that thought and carries it to the conclusion that those superior skills would get damn rusty if that trueism actually held water.

Modern airline folk still exercise those skills, they just do it in a simulator instead of a real aircraft. They don't "avoid" using those skills at all, or they'd atrophy.

That popular aviation catch-phrase embodies the words those exhibiting the Invulnerability Hazardous Attitude would say.

 

[Skylane81E]

True, but what I used it for is that it is better not to get into the jam in the first place

 

[35 AoA]

My grandfather was a bush pilot, air mail pilot, and early commercial pilot in the US, Alaska and Mexico prior to his career in the Army Air Corps and USAF. I'm sure he was a better pilot than I am now, or will ever be, just based on the fact that he survived. I remember one of his old logbook entries being a 1 minute flight with the remark "crashed into a bog on takeoff. airplane destroyed" Pretty much just normal ops back then as far as I can tell.

 

[Jay Honeck]

My grandfather was a bush pilot, air mail pilot, and early commercial pilot in the US, Alaska and Mexico prior to his career in the Army Air Corps and USAF. I'm sure he was a better pilot than I am now, or will ever be, just based on the fact that he survived. I remember one of his old logbook entries being a 1 minute flight with the remark "crashed into a bog on takeoff. airplane destroyed" Pretty much just normal ops back then as far as I can tell.

Watch the video on Paul Poberezny's life. Crashing (or forced landings, as they euphemistically called them) in his early days was normal and expected.

Nowadays, if flying was still the same, it would be banned. Back then, men were men, personal freedom was demanded and expected, and life was cheap.

 

[wabower]

Those are nice to talk about but the real test is how you respond when it happens in spite of your best efforts and planning. Over time you'll see that some respond appropriately based on training, check-list use, common sense, analytical ability and other good instincts. Others crap their pants..

True, but what I used it for is that it is better not to get into the jam in the first place